April 20, 2003

Man that fallout was quick

Consequences of Bush's Pre-emption Doctrine: Coming soon to a thea....wait, no they're already here. Way to go assholes.

The article in the Washington Post is titled, Mulling Action, India Equates Iraq, Pakistan. The byline underneath reads: Pre-Emption Cited in Kashmir Conflict

Some relative quotes:

Asserting the same right of preemptive war that the United States used to justify its invasion of Iraq, Indian officials have accused Washington of failing to end Pakistan's support for guerrillas in Indian-controlled areas of Kashmir and warned that India may be forced to take limited military action against its nuclear-armed neighbor.

But then on the other side:

Western diplomats assert that the case against Pakistan is not as clear-cut as Indian officials claim, noting that some Pakistani militants are nearly as hostile to Musharraf as they are to India and the United States.

What the fuck does India care about whom else Pakistani militants are hostile towards? India is looking out for India. Just as the U.S. was looking out for itself in this recent war. Saddam is/was hostile towards Iran, Kurds in the North, Shi'ites in the South, Turkey, etc. These other hostilities never seemed to bother the U.S. while it was deploying its own pre-emption strategy.

When it's somebody else using pre-emption as justification, it will always be a different case in the eyes of Washington. "No, no guys, this time its different. Trust us." Some of these other countries will heed these lies and back off, but others won't. In an event, there will be a shitload of nations trying to use Bush's pre-emption strategy for their own ends. (I could also bring up here that a certain Austrian-born guy with a moustache once invaded Poland on the grounds that acting first was a necessity. But that would be inappropriate, wouldn't it?)

Actually, I'm surprised it took as long as a month before some other country began citing pre-emption as a tool in fighting its political wars. Bank on more parties following suit.

Here

Posted by mike at April 20, 2003 11:44 AM
Comments

First of all, let me say that India gets the best spin known to man. "It's the largest democracy/ One person, one vote/ The Pakis are muslim (yes, a popular argument these days)/ They're nuclear capable (hence untouchable)"

I say, let Pakistan and India fight it out. So there'll be fallout the world over. So there are upwards of 1.5 billion people in the countries. So what if I like Indian food, but usually refrain from eating Pakistani? Could there just not be enough Pakistani restaurants around?

The conclusion is the proof when the audience knows what it wants to hear.
Moreover, they say, intercepted messages provide strong circumstantial evidence that two of Pakistan's largest militant organizations -- Lashkar-i-Taiba and Hizb ul-Mujaheddin -- collaborated in the March 23 massacre of 24 Hindus in the Kashmiri village of Nadimarg

when was circumstance considered evidence again? the salem witch trials...

anyway, nothing i say is going to mean anything, as i'm writing my last papers as an undergrad. i'm done with school on monday.

Posted by: Nuclear Cowboy on April 20, 2003 07:43 PM

"It’s hard to remember sometimes, but we’re very lucky to be extremely well educated and to have the luxury of time and energy to think about these things, but not everyone has such incredible advantages."

I think its appropriate to note that a well educated society does not necessarily equate to being an open-minded or arbitrative society.

Also, though we have the best-of-the-best in terms of education, we should consider on what tier is it the best. Clearly at the undergraduate, graduate and Doctorial level, we have many institutions that shine bright, but at the level of primary & secondary school education we are lacking. And not everyone matriculates to college, leaving a gap of grossly undereducated individuals (though it understand there is not always a direct correlation to being educated and receiving a good education).

At the primary & secondary levels our funding is weak (that is unless your parents/guardian bucks the cost of schooling from a private school/suburb). What percentage of graduates from Scarsdale receive acceptance to Ivy’s relative to those at PS-128 in Manhattan.

The system is poorly funded and poorly organized. Plus our foreign language program eats greasy balls. European school children graduate the European equivalent of High School knowing two to three languages, and knowing them well.

Yo'o thinko I'm... uhh dunno.

Posted by: Pete on April 21, 2003 08:33 PM

Alissa, turns out I initially misunderstood the context of you’re post. You refer to “we” as readers of Mike’s website and friends of Ben; not “we” being the US population.

Posted by: the pete on April 21, 2003 08:38 PM

I'm sorry for the confusion. I did in fact mean Friends of Ben and not Americans generally. It'll be a cold day when I argue that the US education system produces extremely well educated people, but that "we" came out of left field.

Posted by: Alissa on April 21, 2003 08:47 PM

1)C'mon Alissa, the whole focus on this conflict has shifted to 'finding WMD' to 'Liberating the Iraqi people.' That's the message being put forth by the govt. It rings hollow though when the U.S. decides that 'liberating' other places just isn't worth it.

2) Saddam as threat: vastly, vastly overstated. You and I are not going to agree on this one I know. In my opinion, the guy couldn't control his own country, let alone fuck with others. I haven't seen the evidence of WMD yet, but I'm sure they'll dig up some old Soviet rockets left over from the Iran-Iraq war and say "Ah-ha! Vindication!" Or else they'll find something and say, "Well this could be used for X, therefore it's obvious that Saddam was well on his way to developing ,which would then immediatly be used against Y." The American public isn't so good at picking up on logical gaps.

3) Israel? Irrelavent to this topic. The U.S. needs to stop backing them up so much. Another discussion for another time.

4) Never said American Idol and knowledge of world affairs were mutually exclusive. But the cohabitation of these two things in one person is not exactly, shall we say, strong.

5) You missed my point entirely on the "willful ignorance" thing. Did you happen to catch where I wrote, "I don't blame people who are incapable of understanding these things?" Perhaps I should have included "incapable for reasons of education, time-constraints, too busy trying to find ways to eat, etc.) I don't think I was "castigating a factory worker," under my definition and to suggest so is a little extreme. Your examples, factory workers, GED holders, etc, do not fall into my definition of people "who should know better." To give a small example, "people who should know better" include almost everyone who got into my school here, as well as those that got into your school, etc. If some big shit is happening in Whosawhatistan, these people (NOT factory workers et. al.) don't need to be experts, but they should have a passing familiarity with the subject. If they don't, it doesn't mean they're not capable or that they don't have the time, it means they don't give a fuck or are completly self-absorbed and are therefore, in my book, ignorant sluts.

6) Who's agreed that WWII is the definition of a just war? I'll agree that a lot of it was just, others will say most of it was just, some will say all, still others only somewhat just. There is no "mutually agreed upon consensus." Was Dresden just? How about Hiroshima? I have a feeling we might disagree on these aspects, and I also think that you and I could agree on a few aspects that were less than just. But again, I digress.

7) Again, careful about writing things that imply that I think the U.S. is "forsaking everyone else." That's not what I wrote. However, I certainly don't give the U.S. extra points for not carpet bombing Iraq. I expect that as a minimum requirement. In regards to what I actually wrote, yes, all people, and Americans in particular, have this myopic view of human tragedy. Example, how many Americans could give you a roughly accurate estimate of the body count at the World Trade Center? A: A lot, if not most. Now how many can give you the data on how many Afghan civilians were killed in the war over there? A: Very, very few. The reason? Partly because the Afghan story is underreported and partly because Americans don't care all that much. Actually, part of the reason why it's underreported is also because Americans simply don't care about Afghan body counts, at least in any meaningful way. (i.e. "well of course it's bad but"...doesn't cut it for me.) There is a different standard applied for tragedies that fall into the "American" category and the "Other" category. And to repeat, this phenomenon is not particular to Americans, but it is especially strong in this country.

8) If you feel like posting again I'll give you the final word this time. Right now I gotta kill these motherfuckin' horseflys buzzing in my room. Where the HELL did they come from?

Posted by: mike on April 21, 2003 09:19 PM
Post a comment










Please enter the number above into the box below.